Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
My approach to pings is pretty scattergun. Everyone’s free to duck. 8~)
That's circular logic. You've already defined human beings as those who possess free will; so by your definition anyone without free will is not created by the Creator.
Does God have free will?
LOL. I sent you the link to Father Baker's essay and it was Father Baker whom I quoted.
No HUMAN in church makes a sacrifice; CHRIST makes a Sacrifice.
Read Hebrews 10. Christ HAS ALREADY MADE His perfect, one-time, completed and accepted by God sacrifice ONCE for all the sins of His flock.
Your argument is with Scripture.
That made me laugh and considering the day I’m having, thank you very much.
No, the point was human beings are defined as having free will.
Who makes that definition. I think a better definiton of human being might be "those created by God in His likeness for His glory."
Does God have free will?
It’s a bit off the clearer attribute of omnipotent, but yes, I’d say God has free will.
And I don’t many, outside some Calvinists, that would say the ability to make free will choices is a necessary attribute of the species we call human beings.
I think it would be part and parcel of self-consciousness and the capacity to act contrary to instinct that separates us from animals.
Can God tell a lie? Can God go against His own perfect and holy nature, and commit sin?
Why are you asking me rhetorical questions?
Go ahead and make your argument.
1) You ask rhetorical questions all the time, so why would anyone presume you don't liked them?
2) Why is this a rhetorical question? I've asked this simple question of you twice now and still no answer.
3) If God cannot lie then God does not possess "free will," while you insist men do possess "free well." So here we have a "gift from God" (which is how so many RCs have described "free will") and yet God Himself does not possess the very gift He supposedly gives to men.
LOL.
Apples and oranges times ten.
In human's free will is defined as the capacity to make choices within our capacities as humans. We can lie, we can act contrary to our instincts. God doesn't have "instincts" in this manner. Is not human in his manner, doesn't have human choices to exercise free will in this manner.
So my mistake was in trying to follow your premises of God and free will.
Let’s see if I can once again muddle things up:
God has will.
Natural man has the will to sin or not sin.
Saved man has the will to sin, not sin, or do good works.
Natural man does not have the will to choose God.
Natural man does not have the ability to obey God.
Natural man is dead to God, and must be resurrected by God in order to have faith.
Once that happens, natural man has been transformed into saved man.
Muddle me up, you did. :)
First I should say your use of “natural” man is a bit different, but..
“Natural man has the will to sin or not sin.” I don’t get your meaning here. Are you saying he has free will choices that include whether to sin or not sin?
“Natural man has the will to sin or not sin.”
Or are you saying he has EITHER the will to sin OR the will not sin?
Different wills in different men in other words.
Meaning those are his only choices. He has free will enough to choose from those two.
Saved man has three choices; sin, not sin, or do good works.
Ok. I think I see at least this part.
So, a “natural man” could not have compassion and help an elderly lady carry out her trash or give a stranger the extra fifty cents he needs to take the bus.
If someone can do that, then they must be “saved”.
I’m constructing charity and compassion into this - to step up from not sin to doing good on purpose as you can see.
Do you see where either I disagree or don’t understand your formulation?
Hopefully, I won’t muddle you with my two cents here:
Certainly, true acts of compassion come from God with our acquiescence at least. And wanting to help others is a change from pure selfishness. Seeing the world this way - our brother as our self - is part of transformation.
If we look at it in these terms, we might be on the same page. The disagreements then would be on the black/white, instantaneous, one time event salvation and the double predestination.
I don’t believer, for example, that there are many, if any, men who are incapable of any compassion or any act of true compassion, even though those acts may be exceedingly rare in their lives.
I understand your confusion.
Let’s see if I can muddle things even more :>)
Yes, people do things for the betterment of others, but usually for their own benefit, also. The “good feeling” they get, the “brownie points” to declare to others, the merit badge they earn, etc.
All these things God calls refuse. They are no good. Garbage. They do not please God.
The good works I am refering to are those things God has for us to do. Only when we are in a regerated state do these demonstrate our faith. We do things because they are the “right” thing to do to PLEASE God, not man.
Muddled yet?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.